Clint Wardlow
Forum Replies Created
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Are “the Pros” using DSLRs to make movies? Yes, they have been used in movies and TV, but don’t you think there’s a similarity here? From a production standpoint, DSLRs are completely hobbled, and to make them not so hobbled, you have to bolt on a bunch of third party do dads to make them work sort of like a digital video or film camera, and even then they are still not really up to par. Yet, they are all the rage and obviously good enough for some. Don’t get me wrong, we use them as we have to. They are in demand. Also, we don’t make movies.”
The issue here isn’t whether Pros use DSLRs or (even FCPX), but her perception of FCPX. Frankly, I think most of her stuff will go directly to the web. But like a lot of filmmakers (maybe even myself if I am honest about it), I think she dreams of a showing at Sundance and being hoisted to Hollywood on the shoulders of Miramax execs. And she feels FCPX isn’t consistent with these lofty best-case-scenario goals. (However, even though I’m not sure about studio practices, I’m pretty sure they would want to reconstruct the film from original elements, making the choice of NLE somewhat moot.)
-
[Mark Morache] “Everyone keeps talking about what a small share of their business are the pros like us. I’ll tell you that they can sell all of the ipods and ipads they want, but there’s value in having such a high-end user base that uses their tools.”
Absolutely. A friend of mine (who has little experience in editing)is getting into short docs shot on her Nikon D7000. When I suggested using FCPX (which I felt would be perfect for what she was doing), she vehemently opposed the idea. All the negative reaction from pro editors had tainted her view. Even though she wouldn’t know EDL or OMF from a a hole in the wall, she was determined to use what “the pros use” and as far as she was concerned FCPX wasn’t it.
And I couldn’t convince her otherwise, even though I thought FCPX was perfect for what she was doing, DSLR documentaries loaded to the web. I guess all of us, no matter our film-making level, dream of playing with the big boys…and that is where Pro Editors are so important to the Final Cut brand.
-
[Jim Giberti] “A good business or organization should be judged on how they manage important change – not simply their ability to create it.”
In fact the business world is full of massive failures that involved changes that were considered “too” radical or disruptive. Just look at the “New” Coke. Or if you want movie examples, look at “Halloween 3: Season of the Witch.”
No matter how FCPX plays out as a viable NLE, the manner in which Apple released it was a massive PR failure. And despite its defense by many on this forum, FCPX is going to have to go a long way to win back a lot of folks in the editing community. The brand name may already be too tainted.
Frankly, I think it was a huge miscalculation on Apple’s part. And it fostered a lot of mistrust (deserved or not) of their motives and future goals when it comes to professional software and hardware.
-
On a personal level, it was worth it in someways because it put the Adobe Production Suite in my price range. Admittedly I am not “professional” on the same level as some on this forum. I consider myself an experimental filmmaker. I don’t really make a lot of money on my projects.
I’ve lusted after the CS5 production suite since it was announced, if only to get my hands on Photoshop Extended and AfterEffects. But the $1,600 price tag was daunting at best. I snapped it up at $850.
On the downside, the EOL of Color was a blow. I was hoping for many years of upgrades. I tried free DaVinchi Lite–and frankly it just doesn’t get the job done with its myriad of restrictions. To purchase DaVinchi Resolve and the associated hardware to make it work at its best, I would have to hemorrhage cash.
Was it worth it? Strictly on a personal level, I would say yes and no. Yes ’cause of the temporary price drop in Adobe….no because of the EOL of affordable color grading.
No matter how the FCPX thingy plays out in the future, the shake up it stirred did open up some purchasing opportunities that were priced out of range for a filmmaker on a budget like myself.
-
Actually I was unaware of Resolve Lite. I’ll download it and give it a test run. Hopefully it will contain enough power for my meager needs. The restriction to only two nodes in the comp window is a bit of a drawback, however if it offers good curve grading (what I mostly use, having first mastered curves in photoshop) I will be a happy camper. If nothing else, thanks for pointing me to it, even if it only somewhat assuages my fears that the modular FCPX design isn’t going to be cheap. Will Resolve Lite support FCPXML?
-
While this is really great news, Resolve ain’t exactly cheap. With all the plugins and other programs (future and present) that will be needed to restore FCPX to the functionality of legacy FCP, I have a feeling the price tag is going to far exceed the price Final Cut Studio. Da Vinchi Resolve alone costs more than what I paid for my copy FCS3 (and actually even more than the 1/2 price deal I got on Adobe Production Suite).
This may not be a big deal far large production houses with deep pockets, but for an independent operator guy like myself (who went to a lot of trouble learning the complex, definitely non-user friendly Color), I have a sinking feeling the modular FCPX model is going to be very expensive indeed.
I hope this isn’t true — but it looks that way to me.
-
I am kind of in the same boat as you, but went in the opposite direction. I don’t make my living editing, but use it for “art” projects and sometimes to supplement my income. I went the Adobe route just because the discount price was too good. I don’t have tons of cash to sink into my editing station.
I do see some promise with FCPX, but decided to go with something that will at least be viable for the immediate future (and let me import old FCP7 projects). I have had only passing contact with FCPX but do see the potential for greatness in the future (though I hope they allow more customization of the work space lickety split).
I will probably purchase it in the future, but will await for one or maybe two upgrades. I do want to play with it, but can’t justify the $399 price tag for something that only has limited use for me at present. I enjoyed your thread. It helped me to stick with my decision to move towards Premiere for the near future, but also gave me hope that maybe someday, FCPX will fit my workflow.
-
“Acceptable editing!?!?” That term kind of scares me and makes me shy away from the magnetic timeline even more.
Sure I’ve dealt with other folks edits…and sometimes it is maddening (mainly because their style of editing is totally different from mine). I have had to fix bunged up audio that runs too hot (mainly because they are gauging it by how it sounds on youtube or some such) or has a bunch of pops and clicks because they don’t understand audio needs to fade in and out at the beginning and end of each clip.
Still, I would rather put up with that than deal with a paradigm that forces folks into only one style of editing. And that is my biggest fear with the magnetic timeline. I wouldn’t have so much of a problem with it if it were a choice instead of the only option.
-
I don’t think it has to do with “degrading editors” skills. It has to do more with very basic elements of editing that were set back in the 1910s (and possibly revised somewhat in the 1930s with the advent of sound).
The aesthetics of editing have changed very little since then…we may have added some bells and whistles…but the way we communicate through film editing is pretty much the same way as when Eisenstein and Griffiths set the standard.
This isn’t to say that the editor just follows these rules by rote and is merely a “cut and paste” guy. A good editor brings a lot to the table and can make or break a movie.
However, I think there is a modern tendency to get caught up in the technology of the thing and lose site of the very basic elements that go into solid editing.
And my main concern is that the democracy of modern computer editing –which is great on so many levels–is a two-edged sword in which a glut of product is being produced by those that lack even the most basic skills of editing and obscuring some truly great and often groundbreaking stuff created in this new “democracy”.
Maybe it is just because it is new, but frankly most of the stuff I see on internet sites like blip are just short cheap versions of what is already on mainstream television. And frankly, with youtube it is hard to sort through all the crap to see anything remotely decent. -
While the portable nature of an NLE and a laptop (or an NLE and an air or ipad) can definitely add convenience to the editing experience, there are just some instances where a suite is a must. Laptops loaded with an NLE didn’t really revolutionize editing so much as add a level of convenience.
Film theaters and TV are not going away. The internet has just added another dimension to the mix. Aesthetically, film editing hasn’t really changed much since Eisenstein and Griffiths revolutionized inner-cutting and montage back in the 1910s.
That any piece of software (or hardware) will revolutionize the art of editing is a false assumption in my book. That doesn’t mean it isn’t cool. It just adds another level of ease and nothing more. And from the vast output of (often very poor) product…I am not so sure that is a good thing. Sometimes I wish just as much emphasis was put on craft as the technology of the thing.